Saturday, June 27, 2015


Obama: Americans need to shift religious views to accept gay marriage

After the Supreme Court issued its ruling on gay marriage Friday, President Obama gave a speech in which he said Americans need to change their religious views to be accepting of gay marriage, the Daily Caller reported. To that end, he encouraged gay marriage supporters to "help” people overcome their deeply-held religious views.

“I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue,” he said. Initially, he exhibited a bit of respect for those who oppose same-sex marriage.

"Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs,” he said. “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”

"But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible,” he added. The implication was clear: Those who disagree with the idea of gay marriage based, for example, on their religious views, must change to be more like progressives who accept gay marriage.

“Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he added. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”

"That’s always been our story," he continued. "We are big and vast, and diverse. A nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, with different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are, or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love — America’s a place where you can write your own destiny.”

A post at the conservative blog Chicks on the Right posted it's translation of Obama's comments. "All you crazy religious people who believe in traditional marriage need to change your beliefs!" the blog said. "They're holding you back from joining up with the rest of us super-smart people who aren't burdened by those pesky moral standards given to you by a Higher Power. We know soooooo much better than you and we certainly know soooooo much better than God! Drop the religion crap already and come join us in supporting something you find morally repugnant! Give it time - you'll get over it soon enough!"

The blog also saw something of a threat in Obama's comments. "This is our chance to choose to jump up and party with all the same-sex marriage celebrators before you come down and force us to do it?" the blog asked. "What are you going to do if we're still not on board with it? If we still cling to God and religion? 'Cause I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that God will have something to say about that in a future day."

Obama, as we reported in 2012, has spent some time shifting and evolving on the issue of gay marriage. In February 1996, he wrote on a candidate questionnaire: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” In 2011, however, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer claimed the statement was written by someone else.

"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” he said during his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign. In 2008, he supported civil unions, but not gay marriage.

In 2012, he came on board with gay marriage, apparently reverting back to his 1996 position. But as we reported at the time, there was one caveat. He still supported the states' right to decide the matter for themselves.

Celebrating the Supreme Court decision, the White House was lit up in the colors of the gay rainbow flag Friday. The Interior Department marked it with a picture of two men kissing on the edge of Colorado's Black Canyon, drawing praise from many and criticism from others.


rcg said...

It is easy to leave behind something that is unimportant to you. I recall that President Clinton was aghast that we wanted to go back after the bodies of the Rangers killed in Mogadeshu. Our religion is a superstition to him and most people. It is arguing over upsetting the spirits under the ouiji board because the card table was moved to kitchen from the parlour. This Sacrament was told to us by some Haints that these people don't see.

Православный физик said...

Silly Obama, I could argue against gay marriage without invoking my Catholic Faith (which happens to agree with the position I already hold)...Persecution is coming, pray.

Angry Augustinian said...

Our faith is a superstition to many in the Church, as well. They are in it for the aesthetics and for the purpose of turning it into a huge socialist organization to "change the world." They are evil to the core and we should leave to God any mercy shown them. WE have got to learn to be ruthless…we are not comfortable with that, but we are going to have to learn to be. The enemy is inside the perimeter.

rcg said...

AA, should that flag be inverted?

Angry Augustinian said...

RCG, indeed so…I may just find an inverted US flag of an avatar. I tried to use the Confederate battle flag, but Fr. is chicken.

Supertradmum said...

Well, this was expected by some of us persecution step watchers and it has been planned long ago. The Evil One, Satan, thinks he can destroy the Church, and, sadly, he has plenty of lackeys.

Supertradmum said...

Bye the way, I am looking for benefactors for a house of prayer for lay contemplatives.

If you know anyone who can help, send them here, please. If our country ever needed pray-ers, it is now.

Supertradmum said...

Bye the way, I am looking for benefactors for a house of prayer for lay contemplatives.

If you know anyone who can help, send them here, please. If our country ever needed pray-ers, it is now.

Supertradmum said...

Too much in a hurry--should be by the way, sorry

Anonymous said...

Obama is simply evil, with an appalling lack of knowledge on traditional Christian morality. Then again, look at the church dohe belonged to in Chicago, pastored by the Rev. Jeremiah "God d--- America" Wright.

How can this country survive when a Godless, secular, "anything goes" people---who increasingly dominate this country---is cramming their agenda down the more traditional side, especially---yes, not politically correct---down here in Dixie, where large numbers of Catholics and Southern Baptists still believe that basic moral views are not up for negotiation?

Also appalling---Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the 5 justices who found a right to same sex marriage, had officiated at such ceremonies before she ruled on the matter. How is that not a conflict of interest? She should have recused herself.

Three years ago, the Rev. Franklin Graham---son of course of Billy---wrote "After watching the political conventions of both parties last month, it's clear that America is quickly hurtling down a road toward God's judgment." How true that remains especially after yesterday's ruling---again, made possible by a Catholic appointee to the Court.

Silly Sedevacantist said...

Fifty years ago, Southern states banned interracial marriages because, many churches argued, it violated God's natural law.
The law changed, people changed and finally the churches changed, and that thinking isn't really in the mainstream anymore.
Things change and even the Catholic Church changes, although I suspect it will not change on SSM anytime soon.

Pretty funny to see someone quote the laughable Franklin Graham on a Catholic blog as some kind of moral authority, for like the third time this week.
I do think some of you people are in the wrong church.

Angry Augustinian said...

So, sillly sed, you like same sex marriage, I guess.

Unknown said...

I do think some of you people are in the wrong church.

Well, I'm not.

Things change and even the Catholic Church changes, although I suspect it will not change on SSM anytime soon.

Indeed. Perhaps one day stupid ideas like democracy will have changed right out of existence.

George said...

It is fundamental and foundational to law that the state's need, its compelling interest and obligation to regulate anything, whether marriage or something else, is to benefit society at large, and this interest supersedes the self-interest of the individual, even though it must be acknowledged that at times legislative jurisdictions can be overexuberant in applying this principle. It is the reason that the state does not sanction prostitution and pedophilia, pederasty and ephebophilia among other behaviours which society deems deviant It is why one is required to purchase auto insurance and pass a drivers examination in order to drive on the public roadways. Is it to the benefit of society at large to deny same-sex couple the right to marry with all the attendant benefits that come with that arrangement? I believe it is. Homosexual marriage legally enshrines that which undermines public morality and the family and contravenes the common good of society.

Some things to consider:

Monogamy runs contrary to the homosexual experience. In a study of young Dutch homosexuals, Dr.Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service reported that relationships on the average last between 1-1½ years. She also reported that each homosexual had on average eight other partners per year besides the “stable” one. - Maria Xiridou, et al., “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam AIDS,
(2003) 17(7), p. 1031.

Dr. Barry Adam, a homosexual professor at Canada’s University of Windsor, presented the results of his study of sixty homosexual couples at an August 2003 meeting of the American Sociological Association. “A slim 25 percent of homosexuals interviewed reported being monogamous,” Dr. Adam commented.

On October 15, 2003, a coalition of individuals, community leaders and service providers addressing the health needs of homosexual and bisexual men in Seattle and King County,Washington, published A Community Manifesto: A New Response to HIV and STDs. It found that among Gay men in King County at the time of the study, syphilis rates were 100 times higher than in the general heterosexual population, and were estimated to be 1000 times higher among HIV positive Gay men than among the general heterosexual population. These rates show we have stopped doing the things that protect us and our sex partners from needless infection'' -Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1978); “Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men—King County, Washington, 1997-1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Sept. 10, 1999, Vol. 48, no. 35, pp. 773-777.

Rates of battering victimization among urban active homosexuals are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women. Public health efforts directed toward addressing intimate partner battering among these men are needed.-. Gregory L. Greenwood et al., “Battering Victimization Among a Probability- Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men,” in American Journal of Public Health, Dec. 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12, pp. 1964-1969.

In July 2002, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association published a news release with health issues of special concern to homosexuals. The release observed:Sexually transmitted diseases occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. This includes STD infections for which effective treatment is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia), and others and for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis C virus, Human Papilloma Virus)

Anonymous said...

Here's my favorite line out of Obama's speech:
"And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them."

I just love the imagery here. The noble "progressives," who have moved forward to embrace a new "equality," must now "reach back" to the laggards and dawdlers and stragglers (that's us religious types) and "help" them. That is, reach BACK(wards?) for all those not so bright believers in God's moral law who hang onto those out of date myths (along with their guns - remember?) who are just so behind the times. Have pity on them, and HELP them to join us.
I wonder what kind of "help" he envisions. Maybe suing your local baker or florist or even Catholic Church, or stopping a GoFundMe campaign designed to help defray legal costs from onerous lawsuits, or maybe even getting someone fired for their postings on Facebook.

My first though after this ruling was of that old Chinese curse: May you get everything you want. I think the homosexuals are getting everything they want. I sure hope they do.

Silly Sedevacantist said...

Angry A: like Anton Scalia wrote, it's not of great personal importance to me.

Paul said...

I can already hear it:

" They are haters, hypocrites, racists and bigots. They are on the wrong side of history. They are vermin on the Earth, deniers of science, executors of poverty and filth. They are a useless drain on society who hoard their riches and see imaginary things in the sky. They are crazy, why should The Constitution protect them? Why should we not take their ill-gotten wealth and property?

The world would be better off without the pestilence of religion. "

Don't be silly, no, it will never come to that...

John Nolan said...

I was initially thrown by the acronyms Potus and Scotus since the former is Latin for a drunk and the latter means a Scotsman (as in Duns Scotus, the 'subtle doctor').
When abbreviating it is customary to drop 'of' and 'the', although Pus sounds even worse!

The best thing to do about 'gay' marriage and 'gay' culture is to ridicule it. There are more expressions for homosexuals in idiomatic English than for any other group of individuals, ranging from the rather oblique 'uphill gardener' to the Cockney rhyming slang 'iron' (iron hoof = poof). Countless jokes begin with 'Two queers walk into a pub ...' There is a current TV sitcom about two old bickering queens, played by theatrical knights Ian McKellan and Derek Jacobi (both 'gay' in real life) which taps into this rich vein of British humour. Interestingly it's called 'Vicious' - is the writer aware of the precise meaning of the word?

As the law stands, everyone has the right to be married by the Church of England EXCEPT same-sex couples, whereas they can legally be married an all other denominations. However, I don't expect to hear 'I now pronounce you shirt-lifter and pillow-biter' in a Catholic church any time soon. Ironically, such a couple would probably opt for a Latin Mass with all the trimmings.

Angry Augustinian said...

Well, Silly Sed, sometimes things may not be of great personal importance to us, but we still have to fight for the sake of principle, which I'm sure you understand. I've never seen a wild rhino or tiger, but I believe it is wrong to slaughter them; abortion has no real personal effect on me, but it is an evil that needs to be combatted; I don't care if blacks want to murder each other wholesale, but a violent society brings us all down. So, we have to care about some things for larger reasons.

rcg said...

John, I have the same general opion as you (especially about the stupid acronyms from DC. They are strictly ways of tracking insiders). The problem with your last statement is that many in the USA do hanker for a Catholic wedding with all the trimmings as a setting. Gays seem especially predisposed to Church weddings for reasons that vary from the demand to be accepted to the need to stick it in the face of practicing Catholics. In the USA the arena of conflict is the Law and there are winners and losers. They want the Church and the Faithful who they feel have rejected and judged them, to lose.

Anonymous 2 said...


Do you have any later studies? They might be especially helpful.

Anonymous said...

we'll rot in prison before we'll change our views on gay marriage, mr loser president.

George said...


MARK REGNERUS, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research 41 (2012), 752-770. Elsevier Inc.

THERESA SWEET AND SETH L. WELLES, Associations of sexual identity or same-sex behaviors with history of childhood sexual abuse and HIV/STI risk in the United States. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 59 (2012), 400-408. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Link to web page of American College of Pediatrics which contains other pertinent links.


Mary Katherine said...

Mr. Obama - it will be over my dead body before I ever change my religious views for your immoral religious views on both gay marriage and abortion. How about YOU change your views for once? You are not a dictator, though you act like one. I will rot in prison before I accept the supreme courts' immoral ruling on gay marriage. Persecution is already here.

Anonymous said...

Barry Soetoro, a muslim who embraces Jewish chutzpah.

Anonymous said...

The Regnerus study has been wholly discredited as a fraud.

Among many other available sources:

Anonymous 2 said...


Thank you for the additional citations. However, Anonymous shows just how careful one needs to be in handling this sort of information. If one gets misled into citing bogus or discredited studies, then a lot of credibility can be lost and the citation becomes counter-productive.

George said...

I would not claim it has been wholly discredited as a fraud. I went to your link from the New Republic(not what I would consider the most objective source). One tip off for me was Darren Sherkat's one-word "scientific" assessment in the first paragraph. It seems that this guy has issues of his own.How about this quote from Mr. Sherkat: “How did this study get through peer review? The peers are right wing Christianists!”
By the way did you click on the link I provided above to the web page of American College of Pediatrics? The Regnerus-study is cited in one of the links on their web page. The ACP is against same-sex marriage for sound reasons not isolated to one study. Of course its remarkable that given our present climate, that anyone in academia would even have the courage to come out with such a study.
According to the article, "some 200 of Regnerus’s peers signed a letter expressing 'serious concerns about the scholarly merit of this paper.' Among the problems they cited: The study classifies as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” any people who have had same-sex relations since becoming parents. So what? This is not unimportant? Same-sex marriage did not exist at the time. Mr Regnerus worked with what data he could get. Good luck having any academic studies on this in our present climate. Lets see a peer-reviewed research paper with a point by point rebuttal of the findings of Mr Regnerus. Is that too much to ask?